I seem to be up to my eyeballs lately defending my writing on Jewish issues. In the wake of Nathan Cofnas’s attack on The Culture of Critique (to which I responded here and here; note Cofnas does not dispute my scholarship on immigration), the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Abraham Miller, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati. Miller:

Mr. MacDonald characterizes Jewish behavior in terms of the theory of group evolutionary psychology, based on competition among groups for resources and survival. Most scholars of evolutionary psychology reject Mr. MacDonald’s methods and conclusions. White nationalists and supremacists embrace him, and he returns their affection. …

Mr. MacDonald claims that Jewish traits, such as high verbal intelligence and ethnocentrism, have evolved to the point that Jews, as a group, outcompete non-Jews at the expense of Christian majorities. He further argues that Jews are genetically programmed to undermine Christian civilization. Intellectual movements such as multiculturalism and liberalism serve, in his view, to heighten Jewish advantage because a Christian majority mired in a multicultural society is less likely to foster anti-Semitism.

First, it’s not the case that “most scholars of evolutionary psychology reject Mr. MacDonald’s methods and conclusions.” It would be far more accurate to claim that my work is simply ignored, as I describe in my first reply to Cofnas. Secondly, I never claim that Jews are “genetically programmed to undermine Christian civilization.” My view of group conflict is shaped by social identity theory in psychology, as described in my book Separation and Its Discontents. Social identity theory emphasizes the general human tendency to have positive attitudes toward ingroups and negative attitudes toward outgroups. Jewish attitudes toward Western civilization have been shaped in large part by their perceptions of persecution and, since the Enlightenment, their perception that they have been wrongfully excluded from positions of wealth and political power (e.g., the numerus clausus at Ivy League universities in the early twentieth century). Beginning with the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, extending to medieval and post-medieval pogroms by Christians, and culminating in the Holocaust, the Jewish perception of their history in the West is one of persecution and exclusion. Individual Jews and Jewish organizations could change their attitudes at any time. For example, Jews could begin to realize that the contemporary liberal culture of the West is a better bet for their interests than importing millions of Muslims and Africans to the West. Obviously, there is no guarantee that the liberal culture of the West will survive this onslaught when the native peoples of the West become minorities in the the lands they have dominated for centuries and, in the case of Western Europe, for thousands of years.

It is true that Jewish communal organizations are major supporters of multiculturalism. Then again, so are most mainstream churches, on both sides of the papal divide. Christian communal groups loudly extol their commitment to inclusion and diversity.

But Jewish leadership was neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the passage of the 1965 immigration law. Rather, a liberalizing wave had already swept the West in the decades after World War II, bringing an end to colonialism and informing U.S. competition with the Soviet Union. In this context, America’s 1924 immigration law, which favored Western European immigration, had become an international embarrassment.

My view is that Jewish organizations and Jewish academic activism were a necessary condition for passage of the 1965 immigration law, as discussed in Chapter 7of The Culture of Critique. The data I bring to bear on this issue leaves little doubt that Jewish organizations as well as restrictionists and anti-restrictionists in Congress understood that Jewish organizations had spearheaded the movement against the national origins provisions of the 1924 law and for opening up immigration to all the peoples of the world. Jewish organizations maintained their pressure over the 40 years since the passage of the 1924 law, often combating public apathy on the issue—in particular during the 1950s. Jewish organizations, such as the American Jewish Committee, organized, funded, and performed most of the work of a variety of umbrella organizations aimed at combating restrictions on immigration (e.g., the National Liberal Immigration League; the Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons; the National Commission on Immigration and Citizenship; the American Immigration Conference). The 1965 reform was thus not the result of popular pressure but rather of a 40-year program of activism. Finally, the “liberalizing wave” that resulted in the 1965 law was critically influenced by the other Jewish movements that are the focus of The Culture of Critique, as discussed below.

Miller mentions the role of Rep. Michael A. Feighan, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and a strong opponent of changing the 1924 law until he capitulated shortly before the 1965 law was passed. Miller implies that Feighan wanted an immigration policy that he knew would ultimately make the U.S. into a multi-racial, White minority society. As chairman of the subcommittee, Feighan did have a role in crafting the family-based immigration mechanism that has resulted in chain migration. However, it’s obvious that Feighan would not have advocated such a measure if he realized how such a policy would turn out after the national origins provisions were gutted and the numbers of non-European immigrants were dramatically increased by later legislation — especially given his long record of opposing any changes in the 1924 law (see NPR: “In 1965 A Conservative Tried to Keep America White. His Plan Backfired“). Rep. Feighan could not foresee a future in which large numbers became the reality; this is quite likely due to the fact that the 1965 law was advertised by its proponents as not changing the ethnic balance of the U.S. by dramatically increasing the numbers of non-European immigrants. Moreover, as noted in Chapter 7, family-based immigration rather than skills-based immigration had always been promoted by Jewish activists in the immigration battles, at least since the 1920s.

Finally, since my chapter appeared, other scholars of the 1965 law have noted the critical role of Jewish organizations.

Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.

But American immigration policy in the postwar years attracted a small but growing body of opponents. The political core of a coalition pressing for a new, more “liberalized” policy regime was composed of ethnic lobbyists (“professional immigrant-handlers,” Rep. Francis Walter called them) claiming to speak for nationalities migrating prior to the National Origins Act of 1924, the most effective being Jews from central and eastern Europe who were deeply concerned with the rise of fascism and anti-semitism on the continent and eternally interested in haven. Unable by themselves to interest many politicians or the media in the settled issue of America’s immigration law, these groups hoped for new circumstances in which restrictions could be discredited and the old regime of open doors restored. The arrival of the Civil Rights Movement thrust (racial) “discrimination” into the center of national self-examination. The enemy everywhere at the bottom of virtually every national blemish seemed to be Discrimination, the historic, now intolerable subordinating classification of groups on the basis of inherited characteristics. The nation’s national origins-grounded immigration laws could not escape an assault by these reformist passions, and critics of the national origins system found the liberal wing of the Democratic Party receptive to their demand that immigration reform should be a part of the civil rights agenda.

Who would lead, and formulate what alternatives? Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy cautiously stepped out on the issue in the 1950s, sensing that a liberalization stance would gather vital ethnic voting blocs for his long-planned run for the presidency. His work on a refugee bill caught the attention of officials of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, who convinced Kennedy to become an author of a pamphlet on immigration, with the help of an ADL supplied historian, Arthur Mann, and Kennedy’s staff. The result was A Nation of Immigrants, a 1958 bouquet of praise for the contributions of immigrants and a call for an end to the racist, morally embarrassing national origins system. The little book was initially ignored, but its arguments would dominate the emerging debate.3 The ADL, part of a Jewish coalition whose agenda included opening wider the American gates so that increasing U.S. ethnic heterogeneity would reduce the chances of a populist mass movement embracing anti-semitism, had made a golden alliance.4 John F. Kennedy was no crusader on immigration (or anything else), but he was an activist young President by 1961, comfortable with immigration reform as part of his agenda, elected on a party platform that pledged elimination of the national origins system.

The entire article is well worth reading. Notice in particular that he describes the motive for Jewish activism in the same way I did in my 1998 chapter: “The ADL, part of a Jewish coalition whose agenda included opening wider the American gates so that increasing U.S. ethnic heterogeneity would reduce the chances of a populist mass movement embracing anti-semitism, had made a golden alliance.” Despite the high-flown rhetoric stemming from Jewish organizations, it was really all about ethnic defense by promoting a policy that would inevitably reduce the demographic, political, and cultural power of European-Americans.

Graham also notes that the passage of the 1965 law was greatly facilitated by the sea change in intellectual attitudes on race which stemmed ultimately from the academic activism of Boas and his followers as well as the other movements of the left discussed in previous chapters of The Culture of Critique. This is why in the beginning of my chapter I discuss the ideology of racial equality as being critical. From Chapter 7:

The ideology of racial equality was an important weapon on behalf of opening immigration up to all human groups. For example, in a 1951 statement to Congress, the AJCongress stated, “The findings of science must force even the most prejudiced among us to accept, as unqualifiedly as we do the law of gravity, that intelligence, morality and character, bear no relationship whatever to geography or place of birth.”[i] The statement went on to cite some of Boas’s popular writings on the subject as well as the writings of Boas’s protégé Ashley Montagu, perhaps the most visible opponent of the concept of race during this period.[ii] Montagu, whose original name was Israel Ehrenberg, theorized in the period immediately following World War II that humans are innately cooperative, but not innately aggressive, and there is a universal brotherhood among humans (see Shipman 1994, 159ff). In 1952 another Boas protégé, Margaret Mead, testified before the President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) (1953, 92) that “all human beings from all groups of people have the same potentialities. . . . Our best anthropological evidence today suggests that the people of every group have about the same distribution of potentialities.” Another witness stated that the executive board of the American Anthropological Association had unanimously endorsed the proposition that “[a]ll scientific evidence indicates that all peoples are inherently capable of acquiring or adapting to our civilization” (PCIN 1953, 93) (see Ch. 2 for a discussion of the success of the political efforts of the Boasians to dominate the American Anthropological Association). By 1965 Senator Jacob Javits (Cong. Rec., 111, 1965, 24469) could confidently announce to the Senate during the debate on the immigration bill that “both the dictates of our consciences as well as the precepts of sociologists tell us that immigration, as it exists in the national origins quota system, is wrong and without any basis in reason or fact for we know better than to say that one man is better than another because of the color of his skin.” The intellectual revolution and its translation into public policy had been completed.

My emphasis on the special, critical role of Jews and Jewish organizations in the passage of the 1965 law stands.

[i]. Statement of the American Jewish Congress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, 1st Sess., on S. 716, H.R. 2379, and H.R. 2816. March 6–April 9, 1951, 391.

[ii]. Statement of the American Jewish Congress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 716, H.R. 2379, and H.R. 2816. March 6–April 9, 1951, 402–403.

Share this entry

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngKevin MacDonald2018-04-05 08:28:002018-04-06 16:13:21The Special Jewish Role in Passage of the 1965 Immigration Law: A Reply to Abraham Miller

As you will see if you can “read” MOST of the people calling themselves “jews” today, are not from ancient Israel, but rather are from a different genetic “non-jewish” group.

And Mod. take your high platitudes to space, because if you keep your nose that high. your [sic] going to drown. Just ask for answers. At least David was decent enough to not hit and run. Your [sic] like so many mods hiding behind the internet today.

One might be forgiven for assuming that, if that is true, they would also inherit the desire to obliterate the people who caused that trauma. And as we’re constantly made aware, Jews throughout history have been persecuted by us, so this instinct would have existed prior to the Holocaust too.

+John Waterman “Kevin, I think you need to rethink the genetic propensity for Jews to be destructive to Christian laws and culture.”

We are far from fully understanding the biology of human personality. But the principle is simple: if you can create hyper-aggressive dogs through selective breeding— and you can— then the same would be true of human beings.

It is clear that Jews are hyper-aggressive — and it is most likely that this has a genetic basis. Even if there is no genetic basis and the hyper-aggressiveness is merely “cultural”, the hyper-aggressiveness of Jews is real.

The nature of Jews is to attack the societies which they inhabit– and there appears to be no way of changing this. And so it is quite rational for a society to mount a self-defense.

I look at it in terms of human rights: don’t nations and societies have a fundamental right to be left alone? If a society doesn’t want a Jewish presence within it, shouldn’t it have that right? To say that each and every nation and society must accept the presence of Jews despite its express wishes is to say that each and every nation and society has no right to be left alone.

Kevin, I think you need to rethink the genetic propensity for Jews to be destructive to Christian laws and culture.

What professional and academic accomplishments qualify Mr. Waterman to make this patronizing suggestion to a scholar with academic degrees from prestigious institutions and a record of refereed scholarly publication extending many decades into the past? Moreover, in the making of this patronizing suggestion, why should Mr. Waterman’s rudely familiar use of Professor MacDonald’s Christian name not be deemed offensive?

History, and genetic testing results at John Hopkins prove otherwise.

History proves nothing of the sort. Unless he is a morally and intellectually bankrupt Christophobe, anyone claiming that since the first century of the Christian era, there is no observable pattern of Jews acting to destroy “Christian laws and culture” needs to explain, patiently and thoroughly, why the consistently proclaimed perceptions of the most notable Christian scholars and prelates—frequently the most intelligent and learned men of their day—must be brushed aside because some ermine-clad rabbi declares them all diseased Jew haters?

As for “genetic testing” at JHU, surely its utility is extraordinarily small, to say the least, when applied to a discipline whose prime characteristics include close monitoring of centuries’ worth of behavioral patterns, social structures, stimulus responses, and communal psychology and the use of the data thus painstakingly gathered to draw cautiously limited conclusions that can withstand evidentiary and deductive challenges. Isn’t such genetic testing far more aptly applied in debates as to whether, say, perfumes to be marketed to hyperwealthy Jewish women ought to be tested for safety by being dropped in the eyes of tethered baby bunnies in a laboratory?

And as a former hall pounder myself, I can confidently express that heady academic posturing does not insinuate more veracity.

As Cicero would have said had Catiline uttered the above sentence, I pass over in silence the three flagrant examples of petitio principii (i.e., begging the question) in the quoted sentence so as to wonder whether anyone within a thousand-mile radius can adequately explain what “insinuate more veracity” might possibly mean to a native speaker of English not afflicted with terminal pretentiousness. One need not, however, be a close observer of pretentious vocabulary and muddled semantics to note, in the language of the marketplace, that Mr. Waterman, an admitted blatherer and prevaricator, seems to expect Professor MacDonald to buckle at the knees because he, Waterman, declares MacDonald a falsifier and self-promoter, Waterman himself being a supreme authority* on rhetorical manipulation and intellectual dishonesty.
________________*NB: The Moderator’s complaint of the tawdry use of the argumentum ad verecundiam here finds rock-solid support.

I have made an effort over many years to penetrate the print press with my letters to the editor. Apparently, I have succeeded in making the blacklists of the WSJ, the Chicago Tribune and the local Daily Herald.

“… My emphasis on the special, critical role of Jews and Jewish organizations in the passage of the 1965 law stands.”
Mic drop.

Dr. MacDonald is a man of letters but forgive me as someone who isn’t, I can’t help the cruder image, of a gladiator standing alone in the center of the Roman Coliseum ring, one man facing a pride of lions now unleashed. (I’d say a pack of jackals more appropo, but seek civility the best I can.)

My money’s on MacDonald, figuratively & literally as my copy of CofC arrived just yesterday. (Paperback, I’m but working class.)

You’re a man of courage & dignity, Dr MacDonald, standing against a group loosely, but very effectively networked, that – if you are correct & I am persuaded you are – controls today, all the levers of power in America, & all western civilization countries, too. I don’t envy you but wholeheartedly do admire you.

Yesterday on NPR program ‘The World’ hosted by the jew Marco Werman (liberal as they come and he also supports the refugees from Middle East and Africa going to Europe), he had his Hindu reporter ‘Roopa Shenoy’ talk about immigration and the civil rights movement. She stated that contrary to popular belief that the civil rights movement lead to the 1965 Immigration Act, one person (I do not remember his name) says that there is evidence to show that that is not true. I guess maybe Roopa or whoever that person that first made that statement is right because jews have been at it about promoting non white immigration since the 1920s. I think World War-2 also played a big part in getting rid of all mostly white immigration to America, Canada and also Qz and New Zealand. In America, one argument I heard was that the jews could not come in during WW-2, due to the draconian laws thanks to the 1924 Immigration Act that instituted the quota system. Then there was also that ‘St Louis’ ship filled with Jewish Refugees that was turned back in 1938 and sent back to Europe. It just surprised me that since FDR’s cabinet was filled with Jews that they did not pull any strings to let the passengers of ‘St Louis’ enter the US as refugees. Maybe they knew that they could use this incident to show antisemitism because they knew that WW-2 was coming and that the Jews declared war on Hitler in 1933.
After the war, commie jews tried to change the laws to allow more non whites to come in, but in 1952 it was shot down by Sen. Pat McCarran. Also the McCarthy hunting of commies put the jews in their place. Only when McCarran and McCarthy (two Irish Americans) died, in the 60s, the Jews found their Shabboz Goy, Teddy Kennedy (ironically another Irish American) to push the act by lying that the 1965 act would not change the ethnic balance. So as you can see if WW-2 was won by the right people we would not be having all these demographic changes in the west.

“The Transfer Agreement,” by Edwin Black, argued that the Zionists made an agreement with FDR not to accept any Jews into the US in order to force them to migrate to the Palestinian area where they were planning the state of Israel.

I guess that could be a scenario, but if that were the case, then why send ‘St. Louis’ back to Europe. They should have sent it directly to Palestine. There must be an ulterior motive that it was sent back to Europe instead of Palestine and it would be worth investigating. Also, I heard that when the ‘Havarah Agreement’ was enacted, many jews did not want to leave Europe, but remain there and not go to Palestine in the 1930s. So maybe the jews in the ship opted to return to Europe than move to a barren desert. Only after the war did many of them decide to go to the newly formed state of Israel. I heard that the zionists knew that the war would make many western nations support a new state for the jews and even the war would persuade many Jews to move there. Anything is possible, because it makes sense.

The US Government at that time feared that among those Jewish refugees there might be Nazi spies. In the case of one Jew that was indeed correct. The rest was war paranoia. See : Smithsonianmag : The U.S. Government Turned Away Thousands of Jewish Refugees, Fearing They Were Nazi Spies, at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/…/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-re…

And here things get ‘topical’, Franklin. I was musing, rather idley, on why the British saw fit to exchange Anna Chapman for Sergei Skripal. Why was he important to them? Then these images of him caught my attention:

By golly! This man is a Jew! So he serves nicely as the ‘nerve-gas-poisoned victim’ whose fate kicks off international outrage against Russia, the user in the UK of a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ against Skripal and daughter.

That outrage, drummed up hard enough, will boost the plan to have Russia thrown out of the UN Security Council, then attacked by NATO. Russia’ attention thus occupied, it will give up its protection of Syria against the plans of the criminal state of Israel.

None of this is exactly a neat plot. But (((they))) know from experience that all (((they))) need do is lie their teeth out non-stop, and (((they))) will get their hearts’ desire, in this case, the neutralisation of Russia.

Thank you MountainMan. There is a lot of stuff out there, and you have to research carefully to connect the dots and get the true story. What we hear in the media is all biased since you know who runs them.

Karen T, don’t you mean that rather than be ‘killed’ he took the offer to be an Irish Shabboz goy? He did push the 1965 immigration Act 3 years before Bobby was killed and 2 years after JFK was killed. Like a Vdare article stated that if he was completely out of politics after the Chappaquidick incident, he would not have gone to enact more liberal immigration reforms. One of those was the 1990 DV lottery, which brings in mainly uneducated people from countries that have low rates of immigration to the US. There is a rumor that states that he did it to bring in more Irish, but it backfired because mostly African Negroes come on the DV lottery. I have met these negro DV lottery winners, and they have no skills, are rude, hate whites and act like they are entitled to what the west has.

Whitey has been spewing his wealth all over Earth last 100 years- no wonder folks claim a right to it.

Catholic social teaching: “All the goods were placed on Earth by God, for the use of all.” Global cargo-cultism. . .

A professor of “free enterprise”: “The market is the most efficient method of allocating society’s scarce resources.” Another cargo-cultist

For the last two- the rights of the actual wealth producers is stonewalled. . .

It was 1968, econ 499 at Long Beach State, professor Gene R. Simonson.
We questioned him about all wealth “belonging to society” [rather than to the wealth creators]. He got hysterical, while we brought liquor into the classroom!
A great time to be young- I would surely do it again.

It seems we had violated a major part of the “social contract” by even asking where wealth comes from in the first place, or by challenging social claims to ownership.

What about the Catholic element, given the likelihood that breaking the 1924 Immigration Act would involve mainly Latin Americans replacing Europeans? Or is it the case that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church wouldn’t be able to exert nearly as great of force arising from their self-interest as the Irish, Polish, German Catholics? It would be interesting to know whether there was some kind of alliance of the Catholic hierarchy and the Jewish organisations at that time, because it certainly exists today.

Well, the Catholic Church has always been against jews. In Pre Vatican-II times, they even used to pray that the Jews would accept Jesus as their ‘Savior.’ Please read the book ‘The Prophecy of Bella Dodd’ and in it Bella, who was a former Italian American commie gets influenced by communism from her Russian Jewish teachers who teach her in college in NYC. Years later, she testifies before Congress that she was responsible for many commies to become priests in the 1930s and they infiltrated the RCC. In the 40s, she gives up communism and becomes a devout Catholic. She died in 1969. Many people say that those commie priests started Vatican-II in 1962 and they changed the church and took it away from the traditional beliefs. That is why the church is in such moral chaos these days with the sex abuse scandal. So you could be right that there could be a deal made by these commie priests and also the Jews to allow the 1924 immigration act to be replaced with the 1965 one. Also, the church stopped praying that the Jews turn towards Jesus after Vatican-II. When the old fashioned mass was making a comeback in the late 2000s, many jewish orgs were unhappy that it would help start antisemitism again. Also, many nuns and priests are very pro gay and also multiculturalism. One interesting fact is that during Vatican-II talks, many protestant and Jewish people were consulted about making the changes. So I would not put it past these jews that they suggested a lot of these so called modern changes. The jews also popularized the play ‘The Deputy’ where Pope Pius the pope during WW-2 was accused of being anti jewish. In fact when he died Golda Mier and many prominent jews came for his funeral and praised him for saving some Jews. Even the chief Rabbi of Rome became a Catholic. So you see how ungrateful these jews are and will lie to destroy everything. They know that if you tell a lie for a long time, people will believe it is the truth. A good example is the 6M lie.

Thanks Franks&Beans.
A complex question indeed. The Catholic Church in America was in many ways for long a voice of sanity and patriotism. Later it seemed to outflank the interests of its own lay followers. International forces came to play this unexpected role, to the great loss of all of us. This hijacking must have been perceived at the time by astute Catholics who have lived on to lament it and see its real significance.

JM, You are welcome. The Catholic Church was always a voice of reason. One of the Popes in the 19th century warned that modernism or maybe communism would infiltrate the church and take it away from its true path. Well, all Christian denominations follow that rule of going to different areas of the world and converting peoples to its respective denominations and the Catholic Church is no different. Also, the church collected money, medicine, food to keep these Africans, asians and other non whites alive and that is why we have them coming over here in droves. The Commies knew that by misusing the Christian tenets of ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ and ‘Giving in Charity or sharing what you have with the less fortunate’ would make whites guilty and even the atheist whites and that would open the gates of the west to these non whites. That happened especially after WW-2 So whites should be careful about charity. I get so much in my mail about giving in charity to these non whites and when I see negro faces, the pamphlet goes into the recycling bin at my home. Even conservative Christians are fooled into giving away their possessions to the non whites.
So whites have to think before they give in charity and give only to their own people.

But will this ever be known, really known? Known by people outside those who have read McDonald’s books?
It would seem that it will never be known.
On the contrary the immense wall of propaganda which obscures the historical truth seems to grow
higher and higher.

I see it as Mr. MacDonald’s role to do scholarly work and write the books and articles. He is sort of the first link in the chain.

The next link would be others who spread the word to those who do not read such books and articles, but will read short comments in blogs, and who can be reached with casual verbal arguments.

In some ways, the latter link is the more difficult of the two. It is no easy task to change the minds of people who have been subjected to a lifetime of brainwashing, conditioning, and programming! We who work in this sector must resort to the techniques of propaganda, because only they have the power to pry open men’s minds and get them to see the world in a new way.

This seems like another case of “it’s true when presented as being a good, a crazy conspiracy theory if you don’t like the outcome.”

HIAS can pat itself on the back when it talks about how “because of our concept of tikkun olam and our history of suffering from xenophobia and closed borders, resulting in the Holocaust, us Jews understand the plight of those suffering in the world, and have long been at the forefront of advocating for human rights, tolerance, and alleviating the plight of refugees.”

As soon as someone points out “hey, the Jews just admitted that they’ve led the way on opening our borders to the third world,” i.e. saying the exact thing but with disapproving connotation, it’s suddenly a “wild conspiracy theory” to note exactly what they just noted, but with positive connotations.

Same thing as Joe Biden praising the Jews for Will and Grace, encouraging tolerance of homosexuality, etc. Have someone else say “through their control of media and entertainment, Jews have sought to break down traditional sexual norms and encouraged homosexuality,” i.e. the same thing, and suddenly you’re a madman and kook.

It reminds me of when Abe Foxman insisted on correcting someone who claimed the Jews control Hollywood, by claiming instead that “the people who control Hollywood happen to be Jewish.”

Only in the rarest cases, like an Oscar Levy or an Otto Weininger, will one of them come out and say “yep, we did all that, and it was wrong, you nailed us.”

I don’t know whether some others secretly know that things like Culture of Critique are substantively correct, and knowingly undermine it for the sake of undermining it, or simply refuse to even consider such criticisms and have their minds automatically shift to waving away the premises. I do know that, because of this automatic rejection of criticism, which they also impose upon any form of gentile careerism in the academy, the whole “no/few scholars agree” angle is cheap and worthless, and even more so when they refuse to engage the material outright.

Prof. A. Miller must consider himself a scholar—at least this is what his academic title suggests. I wonder then how he can make such a general, across the board, unacademic statement: “Most scholars of evolutionary psychology reject Mr. MacDonald’s methods and conclusions.”
By “most scholars of evolutionary psychology” Mr. Miller certainly does not have in mind Garrett Hardin, Konrad Lorenz, Richard Lynn, Volkmar Weiss, Gérard Zwang and other proscribed scholars. Has he ever read anything written by them? I don’t blame him if he didn’t. These scholars are not on the reading list in graduate schools in the in EU and USA. In the msm vernacular they carry the unsavory badge of being “racists” and “pseudo-scientific.” One must, however, give some credit to Mr. Miller when he mentions (WSJ) the role of different Christian denominations in facilitating the passage of the 1965 immigration law in the US. Catholic ecumenism has played, over the last several decades, a considerable, albeit destructive role in the surge of modern multicultural dogma and the subsequent floods of non-White migrants to the EU and USA.

Institutional Christianity more broadly has played a huge role in the “diversitistic” destruction of the West. But the question is whether support for this destruction is a necessary conclusion derived from essential Christian dogma; a complete betrayal of the political implications of Christian moral theology; or perhaps merely a series of well-intentioned mistakes (or some combination thereof). These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. I suggest the answer is a combo of #2 and #3.

I think a significant reason why European civilization became nonpareil was due in part to the race’s instinctive predilection for rational dialectic, over and above other human groupings. But dialectic can also serve as an Achilles heel. Europeans tend to very easily understand and internalize the thought processes of other peoples – to the total neglect often of their own vital interests. That’s why it’s so easy for human groupings showing no interest in supporting European civilization to convince the same Europeans that their only interest really lies in declaring themselves null entities and thereby in serving the discrete interests of other races. It’s a fascinating trick. It’s even more fascinating for the pot to call the kettle black, criminalizing the kettle while the pot makes out like a bandit. And it’s beyond credulity, in spite of also being amusing, that an entire intellectual class of Europeans can explain with poker faces why Europeans really need to suicide themselves.

Mr. MacDonald, thanks for clearing up a most confusing political issue.

This whole business has troubled me for quite some time, and this is exactly the kind of material which I have been in need of.

It is obvious to me that the problem is, at bottom, persistent and powerful Jewish propaganda which has clouded our minds, muddled our powers of reason, and made us whites all the more vulnerable to accusations of “racism,” unkindness, bigotry, and all sorts and forms of calumny, simply for wanting to preserve our precious legacy and our national sovereignty.

Dr. MacDonald, your theory/notion of Jewish high predisposition to ethocentrism/exclusivity and group think is self evident, in the continual Jewish refusal to assimilate or for that matter to fully integrate into a host society. This has been the historical experience of EVERY European country for the past 2000 years, & is still continuing to this day despite the existence of Israel !!!
The book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “200 years together” (which to my knowledge has NOT yet been fully translated & published in English) is an example of soft totalitarian power ((( the usual suspects ))) have in keeping the the JQ away from the mainstrean discourse.
Sir, just to let you know…..your books & your academic honesty & integrity is much appreciated from many people from Down Under.

“Most scholars of evolutionary psychology reject Mr. MacDonald’s methods and conclusions.”
Of course they publicly disavow MacDonald, but we all know that they privately know the truth, agree with him, and perhaps even admire him. I definitely do. Not many people would have the stainless steel stones to do what he has done. You need to know you are right beyond any shadow of doubt to stand so alone against such power. “Scholars of evolutionary psychology,” know that to even tip their hat in Kevin MacDonald’s general direction would be suspect. They would most likely be investigated for “collaborating with the enemy”, and called a “nazi sympathizer,” LOL. I almost laughed when I read that. Everyone knows the table is tilted. But it will not last much longer. People know the truth when they see it. And we do see it, more and more clearly with every passing day.

Chap7 CofC is solid work, can’t be disputed. It’s in the Congressional Record.
Look at it this way, as Ann Coulter simplified it, “Our citizens didn’t vote to turn this country into mexico.”
These changes were instituted top down, FORCED on our people.
The Jewish Lobby opened our borders to make America more “user friendly for Jews,” (expressed so nicely by Abe Foxman)
The goal was/is to dispossess/ disenfranchise the whites whose ancestors built this country, to marginalize whites politically, to Holocaust-proof not only America but the entire western world.
Think about it. Why would they lie and claim that the immigration changes “will not change the demographics of the country?” The main GOAL was to change the demographics of the country! When you stop Europeans from coming in, and open the gates to the third world, of course the demographics are going to change in a DISASTROUS manner.
I can see why this information infuriated KMAC, as it must infuriate any white person that comprehends what has been done to us. Our heritage has been stolen,our very lands have been stolen from under our feet. It’s just a matter of time now before the effort is complete. It’s a horrifying, despicable, unfair, evil thing that has been done to us.
And to add insult to injury, I have witnessed countless members of the tribe gloating all over social media regarding the fact that whites are headed for minority status….a disgusting and evil glee that makes me furious and heartsick at the same time.
So hard to believe that we saved these people in WWII, fought our brothers in Germany, destroyed Germany, slaughtered Germans by the millions, to save a group of people that would engineer our demographic demise.
It’s impossible for me to process ungratefulness on such an epic scale. As a white Christian person I can’t even conceive of such disloyalty.

The evidence is abundant even elsewhere. The real problem is most of our own kind are just too stupid to realise what is going on or are afraid of being called “racist”.

I don’t know why you even bother responding to an intolerant bunch who are not even interested in facts but rather want to shut you up. They even TROLL this website in the comments trying to IMPERSONATE and SUBVERT free discussion. However, I know you are a man of integrity.

I think Rossini had Don Basilio sing of the Jewish propensity for muck raking. These recent attacks on you, Dr. MacDonald, are just the beginning.

Calumny is a little breeze,
a gentle zephyr,
which insensibly, subtly,
lightly and sweetly,
commences to whisper.
Softly softly, here and there,
sottovoce, sibilant,
it goes gliding, it goes rambling.
Into the ears of the people,
it penetrates slyly
and the head and the brains
it stuns and it swells.
From the mouth re-emerging
the noise grows crescendo,
gathers force little by little,
runs its course from place to place,
seems the thunder of the tempest
which from the depths of the forest
comes whistling, muttering,
freezing everyone in horror.
Finally with crack and crash,
it spreads afield, its force redoubled,
and produces an explosion
like the outburst of a cannon,
an earthquake, a whirlwind,
a general uproar,
which makes the air resound.
And the poor slandered wretch,
vilified, trampled down,
sunk beneath the public lash,
by good fortune, falls to death.

“Most scholars of evolutionary psychology reject Mr. MacDonald’s methods and conclusions. White nationalists and supremacists embrace him, and he returns their affection.” And many people that are neither White nationalists, nor supremacists admire him greatly also.

Right away, when a Jewish scholar writes “Most scholars of evolutionary psychology reject Mr. MacDonald’s methods and conclusions” the Jewish “scholar” sounds as honest as a [Jewish] journalist and appears to be taking the same attitude that most Jews take towards criticism. They deny it. Historian David Irving has talked about this Jewish trait of going all out to bury any criticism, and then says it inevitably comes back to haunt them.

In the minds of people like that, there can never be any criticism of Jews, no matter how well researched and truthful it is. To this day, most Jews deny their dominating role in the founding and leadership of the Soviet Union and most people in the world are unaware of the Jewish role also. Jews used their power in the media and politics of nations like Great Britain and the USA to cover up the murderous role they played in the Soviet Union. But throughout eastern Europe and Germany during WW II, many people in these countries were well aware of the leading Jewish role in communism. President Vladimir Putin himself has commented on it. When the USSR marched in to take over Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, eastern Poland and other countries in 1939 and 1940, Jews held leading roles in the secret services that carried out atrocities against these populations and the sympathies of most Jews from the countries being victimized lay with the communists also. So inevitably, when one later the German army marched into these same countries, the Germans were greeted as liberators and the Jews were treated as the murderers they were by the local populations that wanted to take revenge. I suspect that to this day eastern Europeans have a greater awareness of the role Jews played in communism than the rest of the world.

Will the Jews denial of the role they have played in completely altering the culture and ethnic makeup of the USA and western Europe and their taking over and domination of important institutions like Ivy league schools with students that have inferior grades to competing whites go by without any reaction by whites or will these whites inevitably feel like the eastern Europeans victimized by Jews seventy to eighty years ago?

The Jews continue to think denial and lying is the best way out for them, and they were on the winning side of the war, but paid a terrible price for what they did to others.

I sense (they) sense they are ever so subtly losing their grip on the white mind. Given the greater exposure to a variety of ideas that the internet has made possible; combined with maybe the greater tendency for people to think for themselves – in part as a consequence of the atomism (they) have cultivated – people are straying. If their position as “intellectual gatekeepers” is eroding this would lead to greater anxiety which would manifest as greater aggression against Dr. MacDonald.

Notice the use of the term “genetically programmed.” This is not unique to the author, it’s been bandied around for a few years by those attacking MacDonald. The function of such terminology is the same as that of the term “conspiracy theory.”

Of course MacDonald has never said that Jews are “genetically programmed” to do anything. It’s a lie, a purposeful misrepresentation of MacDonald’s work.

Another humorous one comes from the SPLC. It would be libel to describe Dr. MacDonald as a “neo-nazi” – but they need to use the term “neo-nazi” in the sentence somewhere when referencing him. So they say, “Kevin MacDonald, the neo-nazi’s favorite academic.”

“For example, Jews could begin to realize that the contemporary liberal culture of the West is a better bet for their interests than importing millions of Muslims and Africans to the West. ”

Similarly, the blacks in S.Rhodesia COULD have voted to keep the whites and therefore still have wealth and jobs and hospitals and the rule of law, but they CHOSE not to have this, and they chose the Zimbabwe option – poverty and anarchy and corruption. They obeyed their animal-behaviour instincts and not their best interests. But let us be generous and assume ‘they had no idea’ how it would pan out. The blacks in S.Africa cannot have this same excuse. They KNOW how it will all end after the example of Zimbabwe. But still they freely vote for THE SAME PATH for themselves. This shows how humans obey their animal behaviour wiring, and they do NOT work out what best interest is.

If the blacks are compelled by their wiring to bring about the destruction of the country that gives them their wealth (ie S.Africa), then why should the Jews not also be compelled in a similar way to work towards the destruction of the host nation that provides their wealth and security? They too, like the Africans, will obey their own hostile feelings that arise from their animal behaviour wiring rather than think logically about it all.

Divorcing couples also provide many examples where hostility comes first, and self interest second. Many would rather the lawyers got all the money rather than their spouse get half and they get half. So hostility comes before self-interest. There are many examples of a man after a divorce killing his own children just to spite his wife. Once again, hate is stronger than self-interest.

The Jews and the Africans are slaves to their animal behaviour wiring even it is bad for them, just as the overfed domestic cat is similarly compelled to fight its overfed neighbour. The cat has nothing to gain in a modern setting by following the fighting behaviour that belongs to another time and place, but they are still compelled to follow it even when it is (in a modern setting) bad for them.

The cat does not ‘think about it’ and then change its behaviour, and neither do the Africans in S.Africa or the Jews in the West ‘think about it’.

The Jewish MO is lie and deny. No matter how many irrefutable facts you have, the lying Jews will incessantly just keep attacking. Then they act surprised when white Goy resort to force. The ONLY reason Jews are not using force anywhere but Israel is because they cannot WIN anywhere but Israel.